### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs N ove m be r 6, 200 7

GEOR GE LA NGF ORD v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 95-06078 Car olyn Wad e Blackett , Judge

No. W2006-02765-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled April 7, 2008

Petitioner, Georg e L ang ford, a ppeals the tria l court’s dismissal of his Petiti on for Writ of Err or Coram Nobis and/or Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in which he c ontended that the tr ial
co urt ’s i n s tru ct i o n s t o th e j ury v i o l at edh i s co n s t i t

u t i o n al ri gh tt o d

u e p ro ce s s

. Af

t er a t h o ro u gh
re vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., an d

J. C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Br ett B. Stein, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Geor g e L ang ford. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; Cameron L . Hyder, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; Will iam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and K are n Cook, Assistant Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound Followinga jury

trial, Petitioner was convicted of first deg ree felony

murder, a g g ravated burg lary , ag g ravated assault, and r eckle ss enda n germent. The jury sentenc ed Petitioner to life imprisonment without t he possibility of parole for his murde r conviction. The trial c ourt sentenc ed Petitioner as a Rang e I , standard offe nder, to f our y ear s for his a g g ravated burg lary conviction, five y ear s for his ag g ravated assault conviction, and two y ear s for his re ckless enda ng erme nt conviction. The trial c ourt order ed Petitioner to serve these sente nces c oncurr ently but consec utively

to his li fe
se nte nc e , f

or an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of lif

e wi tho ut the po ssi bil ity

of pa ro le plu s f ive y e ars . T he fa c ts
surr ound ingPe tit ion e r’ s c onvic tio ns we re summa ri zed by thi s Co ur t on dir e c t a pp e a l a s f oll ow s:-2- I n the ea rly morning hours of Apr il 10, 1995, the de fenda nt went to a duplex
re nte d b y his g ir lf ri e nd , Di ana Wils on , to se e his c hil dr e n a nd g e t so me of

his c lot he s. He of ten stay ed ther e but had be en g one for several wee ks prior to April 10. The defe ndant bec ame jea lous when he sa w Wils on had a m al e v i sitor. Also in the duplex at the tim e we re Wilson's fema le cousin, who was w ith another man in one of the be dr oo ms, Wils on [,] th e de fe nd ant' s tw o s ma ll c hil dr e n, and the 15 -ye ar- old vic tim , T amara

Ga le s.
Wil son ref

used to allow the defe ndant in the home. The de fenda nt, who was
acc ompanied by

his brother a

nd two friends, obta ined a gun and fired into the living room window. The bullet just missed striking Wils on who was sitting on the couch. The bullet pierc ed an inne r wa ll and enter ed a neig hboring apar tment. After the shot
wa s fi re d, Wils on

g ra bb e d h e r 1 0- month- old

so n a nd ra n to hid e in a

be dr oo m c los e t. She was joined by

the victim. Everyone else , including Wil son' s other c hild, escape d out a bac k window.

The de fenda

nt tried to kic k in the front door, but w as unable to g et the door open. The defe ndant and his fr iend th en fo rc ed the door open. Onc e inside he r an thr ou g h th e ho us e loo kin g fo r Wilso n an d the ma le vis ito r. He e nte re d th e be dr oo m, tor e awa y a t le a st o ne do or

fr om t he c los e t, a

nd sh ot int o the c los e t w he re the vic tim was hidi ng with Wi lson and her son. The bullet struck Tama ra G ales, who w as fiftee n y ear s of ag e, in the righ t t em p l e just above the rig ht ey e. The bullet passed throug h the bra in, the neck, a nd lodge d at the spine in the back of the nec k. The fatal injury cause d bruising to he r throat, swe lling of the neck, and an inability to breathe. The victim died as a

result of the injuries c aused by the projec tile.

Wil son' s cousin, who had escaped out the ba ck window, ove rhea rd Wilson and the de fenda

nt standing outside the duple x talking a fter the shooting. She he ard Wil son tell the defe ndant he ha d killed the t eena g er to which the de fenda nt replied,

“ he did n' t g ive a

f-

-- .” Th e de fe nd ant f le d to Mis sis sip pi a

nd e ve ntu a lly

to Milwaukee , Wis consin, wher e he r emained f or about a month.

Th e de fe nd ant t oo k th e sta nd a t tr ia l and

sa id t he sh oo tin g s w e re a c c ide nta l. He c laimed he wa s using the gun to break the window and it we nt off whe n the g un struck the g lass. Also, while he attempted to slide the closet doors back lookingfor the male visitor and dur ing that action, the gun acc identally went off

. Sta tev . G e or

geLan gfo rd , No. 02-C01-9703-CR-00099, 1997 W L632805 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, O ct. 15, 1997).

T h i s Court affirme d Petitioner’s convictions and se ntence s on direct a ppeal. Id . The Tenne ssee Supreme Court g rante d Petitioner’s application for appea l and also af

firmed Petitioner’s sentenc es and c onvictions. Sta tev . La ng for d , 994 S.W .2d 126 (Tenn. 1999)

.-3-

Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief alleg ing the ineffe ctive assist ance of trial counsel. This Court a ffirme d the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief

. GeorgeLangford v. Sta te , No. W2001-00371-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 W L1482802 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 7, 2002).

II. P etition for Writ of Error Cor am Nobis an d/or P ost-Conviction Relief Petitioner filed a pe tition for writ of er ror c oram n o bis and/or post-conviction re lief on November

3, 2005. At the evidentiar y hear ing, Petition er ar gu ed that he had disc overe d new evidenc e in the form of the testimony of Marlon For eman. Petitioner contende d that Mr. For eman would have testified that Petitioner did not “have any intent of harming [ his] g irlfriend that night.” Petitioner admitted that his trial counsel knew a bout Mr. For eman at the time of trial, and that Mr. Fo r e ma nw a s in c ar c e r a te d

a t t h a t t im e

. Pe ti ti o n e r

c o n c e d e d

th a t h e ar g u e d

in h is p o s t- c o n v iction petition that his t rial counse l’s assistance was inef fec t i v e fo r failing to interviewall potential wi tne sse s, and

that th is C ourt

c on c lud e d th a t couns e l’ s ass ist anc e in thi s re g ard wa s n ot d e fi c ie nt. Se e Ge or geLan gfo rd , 2002 WL1482802, at *2-3 (notingthat trial counsel testified at the evidentiar y hear ing t h a t i nv e s ti g a to r s from the Public Def

ender ’s Off

ice ha d interviewe d all potential witnesses who c ould be locate d). I n his brief, other than including a portion of the tr anscr ipt of the evidentiar y hear ing c oncer

ning Mr . For eman’ s proposed testimony , Petitioner did not present any
argume nt o n th is iss ue in h is d ir e c t a pp e a l. T his iss ue is a c c or din g ly wa ive d. Te nn . R. Ct. Cr im. App. 10; Tenn. R. App. P. 27. Petitioner also challeng ed the tria l court’s jury instruction on t h e def

ense of voluntary intox ication. In this appeal, Petitioner ar g ues that the trial c ourt’s j u ry i n s t ruction on vol untary intox ication did not adequately define the term “ invo l u n t ar y intox ication,” a

nd the trial cour

t’s instruction that “it is the duty of per sons to refr ain from plac ing the mselves in a cond i t ion which poses a dang er to othe rs,” impermissibly injected the trial court’s persona l opinion in t o t he ins tr uc tio n. Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th e se e rr or s v iol a te d h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht o f d ue pr oc e ss.
Addre ssing f

irst Petiti oner’ s coram nobis claim, we note that the pe tition was filed we ll after the on e -ye ar s tatut e of lim itatio ns a pp lic a ble to s uc h f

ili ng s. T. C.A . § § 2 7- 7- 10 3; 4 0- 26 -1 05 ; Sta te v. Mix on , 983 S.W .2d 661, 671 (Tenn. 1999) . Howeve r, “the State bear s the burden of raisingthe bar of the statute of l i m i t ations as an a ffirmative defe nse.” Ha rri s v . S tate , 102 S.W .3d 587, 593 (c i t i n g Sa nd

s v . S tate , 90 3 S.W. 2d 29 7, 29 9 (T e nn

. 19 95 ))

. Th e State ’s re sp on se to t he pe tit ion

did not challeng e its timeliness. Nonetheless, we conclude that Petitioner has not stated a c laim which i s co gn i z ab l e i nan erro r c o ra mn o b i s p ro ce ed i n g.
Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 26 -1 05 (b ) p ro vid e s th a t: [u]po n a sh ow ing by the de fe nd ant that the de fe nd ant wa s wi tho ut fa ult in f a ili ngto prese nt cer

tain evidenc e a t t h e prope r time, a wr it or err or cor am nobis will li e for subsequently

or newly discovere d evidenc e re lating to matter s which we re litig ated-4-

at the trial if the judge deter mines that such evidenc e may have r esulted in a diff ere nt judgme nt, had it been pr esente d at the trial. The challeng e to the t rial court’s jury instructions on voluntary intox ication could have been discovere d by

Petitioner and ra ised in a post-convic tion petition or on direct appe al. Nor do Petitioner’s alleg ations of improper jury instructions “amount to new e vidence of innoce nce which would have resulted in a differ ent judgme nt ha d it be en pre sented at trial.” Fr esh wate r v . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 548, 556 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (concludingthat alleg ations of juror misconduc t do not pr e se nt a c og niza ble c la im fo r c or am no bis re lie f) (c iti ng T. C.A . § 40 -2 6- 10 5; Sta te v . D oy le Ha rt, No. 02C01-9612-CC-00451, 1997 WL 563613, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Sept. 10, 1997), no perm. to appeal filed ; Ke nn e th C . S tom m v . S tate , No. 03C01-9110-CR-00342, 1992 WL97081, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, May 12, 1992), no perm. to appeal filed (stating that “[t] he [coram nobis] proceeding is confine d to err ors outside the re cord a nd to matters which we re not a nd could not have be en litigated at trial, the motion for ne w trial, appe al, or upon post-c onviction pe tit ion .” ); State v. Jam es D. “Sonny” Y arbrough , No. 01C01-9001-CC-00012, 1990 W L109107, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Aug . 3, 1990), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. O ct. 29, 1990) (noting that the remedy of error coram nobis is also not available on matters that were or could have be e n li tig a te d in

a po st- c onvic tio n p ro c e e din g )) . T hu s, Pe tit ion e r is n ot e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is issue.

Petitioner alternatively argues that the improprie ty of th e tria l c o u

r t’ s ju r y in structions entitles him to pos t- c onvic tio n r e lie f. Th e Pos t- Convic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t “ c on te mpl a te s th e fi lin g of on ly one (1) petition for post-conviction r el i ef.” T.C.A. § 40-30-202( c). A fter a post-conviction proce edinghas bee n completed and relief has been denied, as in this case , the plain languag e of the statut e pr ov ide s o nly

thr e e g ro un ds fo r r e op e nin g the pr oc e e din g s: a ne w c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t hat is g iven re troac ti v e appli cation, new scientific e vidence of ac tual innocenc e, and e vidence of an improperly

enhanc ed sente nce. Id . § 40 -3 0 -2 1 7 (a )(1) -(3) . A cha lleng e to a tria l court’s jury ins tr uc tio ns is n ot o ne of

the statut or

y g ro un ds fo r r e op e nin g a

po st- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g . T hu s, we c onclude that the tr ial court did not err in denying Petitioner post-c onviction relief.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE